The Loftiness of the Naga National Movement and the RIIN

The Naga national movement was not a movement launched so that India- or for that matter- any other nation can define to us who we are or what indigenous rights we had to our lands. It was also never a movement that was launched so that some neighbouring countries can integrate us under their own Constitutions. On the contrary, in order to affirm our stand as a nation, we hoisted our national flag on August 14, 1947 and declared our sovereign independent republic called the Federal Government of Nagaland on March 22, 1956.

Tragically, over the years, some pseudo self appointed, so called governments of Nagaland have hijacked the Naga peoples Federal Government and have gotten themselves hopelessly entangled in India’s internal affairs. This tragic story began in 1960 when some selfish and cowardly Nagas instead of standing with their compatriots to defend Nagaland, instead asked for a state under the Constitution of India. This act resulted in Nagaland becoming the 16th state in India on December 1, 1963. To cut a long story short, today besides the Indian Nagaland state, there are 8 other Naga national political groups (NNPGs) talking with the Indian government with their own different political agendas. Some of these groups seems be asking for integration of Naga territories under a common (foreign) political umbrella while others seem to be asking for a shared sovereignty with India. Also, under the guise of a shared sovereignty, some of these NNPGS seem to be even seeking for a duel indigenous identity and land ownership rights in two different tribal lands. Here, I have used the word “seem” because none of these NNPGs have so far revealed any details of their secret talks with the Indian government.

In the light of these political developments and the accompanying confusions, the following universal facts and Naga political facts are reiterated:

The word indigenous means, ‘native or naturally belonging to a (geographical) place.’ In this sense there can be no indigenous identity of a person without an accompanying geographical reference point. Now, a Naga cannot be an indigenous Indian simply because he/she (or even his ancestors) has no lands in India. But in the case of Nagaland, a Naga is an indigenous inhabitant of Nagaland because he has lands in Nagaland where his ancestors have also lived. The Naga national movement was launched to safeguard both these Naga national identity and Naga geographical identity.

But if we surrender our unique geographical identity to become one with India, we will end up losing both our national identity as well as our indigenous identity. In such a situation, we will become nobody’s both in India as well as in Nagaland.

Kaka D. Iralu